13007073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Shah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

13007073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/007,073 01114/2011 AmipJ. Shah 56436 7590 06/30/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82467404 5888 EXAMINER TRUONG, DENNIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMIP J. SHAH and MANISH MARWAH Appeal2014-006316 Application 13/007 ,073 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention supplies missing impact factors in a database. In one aspect, a matrix of each database tree is provided, where each dimension represents a tree node, and each another dimension represents an impact factor for a component of a system under consideration. A missing impact factor is identified and estimated, and the estimated impact factor is populated in the matrix. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 1. A method of supplying missing impact factors in a database, the method carried out by program code stored on non- transient computer-readable medium and executed by a processor, the method comprising: providing a matrix of each tree in the database .in computer-readable medium, with each of a first dimension in the matrix representing a node of the tree, and each of a second dimension in the matrix representing an impact factor for potential substitution components of a system under consideration; identifying at least one missing impact factor in the matrix; and estimating the missing impact factor and populating the estimated impact factor in the matrix in the computer-readable medium. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Welch (US 6,862,540 Bl; Mar. 1, 2005) and Feingold (US 2010/0235300 Al; Sept. 16, 2010). Non-Final Act. 3-10. 1 RELATED APPEAL On page 2 of the Brief, Appellants identify an appeal filed in Application Number 13/007, 152. That application, however, was allowed after appeal without a Board decision, and is now U.S. Patent 8,730,843. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Non-Final Rejection mailed September 20, 2013 ("Non-Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed December 20, 2013 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed March 4, 2013 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 30, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Welch's method of supplying missing impact factors in a database has every recited element of claim 1 except for providing a matrix of each database tree with each first and second dimension representing a tree node and impact factor, respectively, but the Examiner cites Feingold as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Non-Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2--4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Welch does not describe specifically how each building's utility consumption data is stored, Welch is said to recognize possible implementations with single and multiple dimensions. Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons, then, that storing each buildings' utility consumption data in Welch in a "flat" database or a multi-dimensional matrix as taught by Feingold would have been a matter of design choice. Ans. 3--4. Appellants argue that the relied-upon incomplete time series in Welch is a single dimension-not a multi-dimensional matrix as claimed. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants add that Feingold's dimensions and cells associated with the relied-upon multi-dimensional cube do not teach or suggest the recited tree node and impact factor that are represented by the matrix's first and second dimensions, respectively. App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 4--7. Appellants add that the Examiner's rationale to store Welch's utility consumption data in a multi-dimensional matrix is mere conjecture and based on hindsight. Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue other recited limitations summarized below. 3 Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 ISSUES I. Under Â§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Welch and Feingold collectively would have taught or suggested a method of supplying missing impact factors in a database including: ( 1) providing a matrix of each database tree, with each of (a) a first dimension in the matrix representing a tree node, and (b) a second dimension in the matrix representing an impact factor as recited in claim 1? (2) weighting groupings of nodes based on similarity before estimating the missing impact factor as recited in claim 9? II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS Claims 1---8, 10-17, 19, and 20 On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's position that Welch and Feingold collectively at least suggest the recited matrix. Welch's system analyzes utility consumption as a function of time, but, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, such a time series can be "incomplete" due to gaps resulting from missing data-gaps that are filled using copied data. Welch, Abstract; col. 4, 1. 64 - col. 5, 1. 58. There is no dispute that Welch's gap-filling technique (1) identifies and estimates a missing "impact factor," and (2) populates the estimated "impact factor" in the associated data. See Non-Final Act. 4. Nor is it disputed that Welch's building utility consumption data is stored. 4 Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 The question, then, is whether the recited matrix-based data storage would have been obvious in light of Feingold as the Examiner proposes. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's position given the Examiner's reliance on Feingold's two-dimensional matrix in Figure 9 which represents a node-based data hierarchy in the tree structure of Figure 8. Ans. 3--4; Feingold i-fi-f 18-20. Although Feingold's matrix presents data pertaining to different parameters, namely currency and region, we nonetheless agree with the Examiner at least to the extent that the fundamental concept of using a multi-dimensional matrix to present hierarchical data, such as that in Welch, would have been obvious in light of Feingold. Ans. 3. That the Examiner finds that each building and each utility in Welch can be represented as nodes in a hierarchical tree only bolsters the Examiner's position in this regard. Id. (explaining how Welch's utility consumption data could be presented in a multi-dimensional matrix if so used). Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence on this record that skilled artisans would have been incapable of such a multi-dimensional presentation. In short, the Examiner's proposed enhancement to Welch uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, the Examiner's reason to combine the teachings of the cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Appellants' arguments regarding (1) Welch lacking a multi- dimensional matrix, and (2) Feingold's dimensions and cells associated with the relied-upon multi-dimensional cube not teaching the recited tree node and impact factor (App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 4--7) are unavailing. These 5 Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 arguments essentially address each reference's individual shortcomings and are unpersuasive where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 not argued separately with particularity. Claims 9 and 18 We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 reciting weighting groupings of nodes based on similarity before estimating the missing impact factor. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7-9), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's position that Welch at least suggests weighting groups or clusters of days with commensurate energy consumption profiles based on similarity, namely how close the groups are in time to that of the missing data or "impact factor." Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 4--5 (citing Welch, col. 5, 11. 32-34; col. 7, 1. 62- col. 8, 1. 8; col. 9, 11. 25---61). As the Examiner indicates, the clusters (groups) that are closer in time to the missing data are more relevant for estimating what the missing data should be and, in that respect, the groups are weighted. Ans. 5. That this determination can occur before using computed statistics to shift the data to account for trends adjacent the gap (see Welch, Abstract; col. 5, 11. 28-54; col. 9, 11. 61---66) only bolsters the Examiner's position that groupings are weighted before estimating the missing impact factor. Accord Non-Final Act. 4 (referring to this shift in connection with the recited 6 Appeal 2014-006316 Application 13/007,073 estimation). To the extent that Appellants contend that it would not have been obvious for such weighted groupings to corresponding to weighted groupings of nodes, such a node-based grouping would have been obvious given the Examiner's findings regarding node-based representations noted previously. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9, and claim 18 not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 underÂ§ 103. 2 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 2 Should prosecution reopen after this decision, we leave to the Examiner to determine whether claim 1 recites patent-eligible subject matter under Â§ 101 under the framework in Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355-56 (2014). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F .R. Â§ 41.50(b ), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Â§ 1213.02. 7